Guys, this is really nuts, albeit amusing sometimes.
A little background, I've been a developer for several platforms, including all the ones in question, for quite a number of years. I'm also a musician as well as visual art/design. In all of which I use computers.
Of the 3 majors that we are mainly talking about (Linux, MacOS (9.x & X), Windows (All)) I chose MacOS the vast majority of the time.
The reality is this. Linux is fine for some things, but it definitely can't do others (at least to my satisfaction), and neither can Windows. Granted, previous to OS X, I was often frustrated with the lack of the sheer power that good memory protection and virtual memory schemes allowed; however, it was much more enjoyable to use even with these limitations. Also, with very little trying you can get into the guts of the machine just like the others.
Now, there's really nothing that the others do for me that I can't do with OS X. Granted, I currently have to boot into OS 9.1 (which is shipped in the box) to burn discs and play a DVD, but that will be remedied shortly, and I don't do either enough to worry about.
Pre OS X days, I _really_ wanted Linux to do the job for me. The fact remains, the tools for music and graphics just aren't there. And the interface to the OS (regardless of the one you use) just sucks. Totally unpolished. For the musicians out there who use Linux for it, I imagine that a few lessons on MOTU's Digital Performer will break that habit.
I believe we do have to give Linux (and the really great people everywhere who develop for it) it's props for all the drive and creativity behind the proliferation of tools to handle various aspects of the machines. This can be shared with the Unix, et al. For that matter, Windows has driven quite a market of development on tools as well.
As for proprietary hardware...Well, you get what you pay for. That's always been the rule, and it always will be. It's kinda like choosing between a Ford Taurus (a good car) or a BMW Z8 (a superior car). I only wish those two cars were just a couple hundred dollars apart too. Which would you choose? Also, generally speaking, the ROI is better with the Macs. Various studies by IDG and others have shown this, but those are just statistics.
As for Linus' comments...they were a bit out of line. Blanket statements like that rarely hold much water. I mean, c'mon guys, let's get a little realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
Guys, this is really nuts, albeit amusing sometimes. A little background, I've been a developer for several platforms, including all the ones in question, for quite a number of years. I'm also a musician as well as visual art/design. In all of which I use computers. Of the 3 majors that we are mainly talking about (Linux, MacOS (9.x & X), Windows (All)) I chose MacOS the vast majority of the time. The reality is this. Linux is fine for some things, but it definitely can't do others (at least to my satisfaction), and neither can Windows. Granted, previous to OS X, I was often frustrated with the lack of the sheer power that good memory protection and virtual memory schemes allowed; however, it was much more enjoyable to use even with these limitations. Also, with very little trying you can get into the guts of the machine just like the others. Now, there's really nothing that the others do for me that I can't do with OS X. Granted, I currently have to boot into OS 9.1 (which is shipped in the box) to burn discs and play a DVD, but that will be remedied shortly, and I don't do either enough to worry about. Pre OS X days, I _really_ wanted Linux to do the job for me. The fact remains, the tools for music and graphics just aren't there. And the interface to the OS (regardless of the one you use) just sucks. Totally unpolished. For the musicians out there who use Linux for it, I imagine that a few lessons on MOTU's Digital Performer will break that habit. I believe we do have to give Linux (and the really great people everywhere who develop for it) it's props for all the drive and creativity behind the proliferation of tools to handle various aspects of the machines. This can be shared with the Unix, et al. For that matter, Windows has driven quite a market of development on tools as well. As for proprietary hardware...Well, you get what you pay for. That's always been the rule, and it always will be. It's kinda like choosing between a Ford Taurus (a good car) or a BMW Z8 (a superior car). I only wish those two cars were just a couple hundred dollars apart too. Which would you choose? Also, generally speaking, the ROI is better with the Macs. Various studies by IDG and others have shown this, but those are just statistics. As for Linus' comments...they were a bit out of line. Blanket statements like that rarely hold much water. I mean, c'mon guys, let's get a little realistic.